Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

The Met: What Happens Next, Part One

Tom Campbell’s forced resignation from the top post at the Metropolitan Museum of Art* yesterday was both expected and shocking at the same time. Given the museum’s financial woes–most of which Campbell is responsible for–and internal morale, especially among curators–ditto–he could not last. He is just 54, and normal retirement would be years away.

Campbell knew it: he applied for and did not get the directorship of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, I’ve been told by reliable sources. That job went instead to Tristram Hunt, a former Labour MP. I’ve heard he has made inquiries about other top jobs as well.

I think it’s good that the Met board acted–a bit late, imho, but still–it’s was an unprecedented move on their part, one that means the Met will remain unsettled for months if not years to come. I also agree with the temporary elevation of COO Dan Weiss to CEO. While he may want the job–I have heard mixed views of that–I think it would be a mistake to name him director.

Before trustees write the next job description and begin assessing candidates, they should–we all should–understand why Campbell failed.

One of Campbell’s biggest mistakes (we’ll get to the financial issues later) was losing the support of the museum’s curators–even those he hired or promoted. Remember that he was their choice when Philippe de Montebello retired in 2008. The search committee was looking at two other internal candidates–Gary Tinterow, who later left to head the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and Ian Wardropper, who later took the job at the Frick Collection. (Both are flourishing, though Wardropper has faced push-back on his expansion plans and has had to drop one set of them for a less ambitious plan, still in the making.)

Curators pushed Campbell’s name then–they thought he was a good curator and, as one told me recently, they did not know his failings.

But he has regularly disappointed them. His offenses are many–including his lack of interest in their acquisitions (he doesn’t even want to look before the meetings, some curators say–a distinct contrast from PdM); his closed-door, appointment-only policy for one-on-ones; his predilection for hiring British curators who (supposedly) would be loyal to him; his hard-edged privileging of contemporary art and the need to be “hip” over the art in the Met’s collections; his over-the-top hiring in the digital media department, which meant that curatorial jobs (mostly assistant level) could not be filled; and the way he treated many curators who he ushered, sometimes prematurely, out the door of the Met so he could make his own choices.

Oh yeah, and he openly disparaged them in public, telling Deborah Solomon “You tell your American curators to stop being such whiners.”

And while they were not curators, it was stupid of Campbell to “encourage” the departure of former president and fundraiser par excellence Emily Rafferty and Harold Holzer, the snior vice president for public affairs, who managed the Met’s image. Campbell made life difficult for both (and others), apparently in the belief that they were too close to de Montebello.

That kind of behavior can not go on in an institution like the Met, which shines mainly because of the expertise of curators and the exhibitions and scholarship they produce.

So, I would say, the death knell for Campbell really began pealing loudly–as I wrote here on Jan. 10–when the Forum of Curators, Conservators and Scientists voted on and sent a letter of complaint to Campbell, Weiss and board chair Daniel Brodsky. That was triggered, as I wrote, by cuts in their benefits late last year but it was about so much more. And it was so explosive that even board members who wanted to see it had to visit the General Counsel’s office–Brodsky refused to circulate it lest the contents leak to the press.

Years ago, the director of the Met (and other museums) was really chief curator as well as chief executive. The job’s expanded duties now have made that difficult, but it’s worth remembering when the board considers whom to hire next.

If the search committee–yet to be named, another good sign, I think–cannot find someone who can live with and encourage curators, rather than demoralize them, they should consider creating the job of a chief curator who will be their advocate.

Photo credit: Courtesy of the LA Times

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met

 

 

 

Many Miles To Go To See Art

I don’t know all that many people, aside from curators doing research and wealthy collectors, who hop on a plane a fly overseas mainly to see an art exhibition. But that is what has been happening in recent weeks for Icons of Modern Art: The Shchukin Collection at the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris. I did it myself over Presidents’ weekend, and–thanks to airfare and hotel sales, largely due to a drop in tourism in France attributed by many to terrorism fears–believe it was worth every penny I spent.

(The last time this happened, I think, was 2011, when the National Gallery in London presented Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan. I am sorry I didn’t make the trip for that one.)

The Shchukin show is simply amazing. The highlight is a roomful of Matisse paintings, including The Red Room (Harmony in Red). It faces a wall with The Pick Studio in the center, as seen here (I got in as soon as the exhibition opened–later this room was much more crowded):

But there are so many surprises too–a tapestry work by Edward Burne-Jones; Picasso’s Portrait of Soler; a little Rousseau titled View of the Port Sevres, with a balloon, a biplane and a dirigibl; a wonderful Cezanne self-portrait; many Picassos, and a great roomful of Gauguins.

Shchukin bought these works between 1898 and 1914–the 130 at FLV, and another 145 or so–from top dealers like Vollard, Durand-Ruel, Bernheim and Kahnweiler. He displayed them cheek-by-jowl, too close together, as at right, and he opened his home to Russian artists, who learned from his collection.

The cost to mount this exhibition, I’ve heard, exceeded $1 billion in insurance, shipping. couriers, display/installation, preparation and publication of the catalog and other books (I bought an abbreviated paperback about the exhibition, rather than carry home a very weighty catalog), security and so on. Managing the lines to get into the FLV, located in the Bois de Boulogne, probably cost extra too! They are long.

But that’s not the reason to go. The reason to go is this: seeing these works together, in the west rather than in Russia, where the collection is split anyway–is unlikely to happen again, at least in our lifetimes. Which is why, in the three days I was in Paris, I knew of neighbors with no art world connections who went over, ran into some friends at the Musee d’Orsay who had arrived just for the Shchukin exhibition, and learned of a few other friends who had done the same on other recent weekends. And that doesn’t include the curators who spent their own money to go.

The one false move, for me, was an opening multi-screen video installation by Peter Greenaway and Saskia Boddeke that creates a conversation between Shchukin and Matisse, largely about his murals La Danse and Music, and gives minor roles to other artists. It comes off as very phony and not terribly entertaining.

If you can, I encourage a visit–the exhibition was extended until Mar. 5.

The FLV building, designed by Grank Gehry, seemed to me to be good for art, with grand galleries, small spaces and good traffic flow–but I did not like the colored splotches (blue, yellow, green, red) added by French artist Daniel Buren in a temporary installation titled Observatory of Light. The building is more beautiful without Buren’s work (at left, in a picture that makes it look good!), which said nothing to me.

Before Icons, FLV had been showing its collection, owned by Bernard Arnault, in different hangs, which you can see here. I cannot tell you whether they were good. But with Icons, Arnault has done the world a favor.

 

Finally, A Botticelli Exhibition in the U.S.

The Muscarelle Museum of Art at the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Va., has pulled off another noteworthy show, again eliciting important loans from Italy that other, larger museums would covet. This exhibit–Botticelli and the Search for the Divine: Florentine Painting Between the Medici and the Bonfires of the Vanities–follows previous ones in the last few years showcasing drawings by Michelangelo, paintings by Caravaggio and drawings by Leonardo. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston partners with the Muscarelle on them, but it is the smaller museum that organizes them.

That’s because, as I explain in my review of the exhibition, which is in today’s Wall Street Journal,  the Muscarelle employs John T. Spike as curator and deputy director. He lives in Italy much of the time and has deep relationships there. In the art world, relationships matter–sometimes a little too much. Loans are granted at times to friends, but not to others.  Often, that means that a less-wealthy museum, with few works they can lend in return, cannot borrow great works from large collections.

But not always, and not this time.

The show at the Muscarelle is small and includes some works painted partly (perhaps mainly) by Botticelli’s assistants–but that differs not at all from the way art is made these days, or then.

And, as I write, short of making a trip to Italy, this show gives us a better taste of Botticelli than we can get anywhere else in the U.S. The Journal has posted a few works along with the review and I’ve posted a few different ones here.

When it moves to Boston in mid-April, the exhibition will gain a few Botticellis from the Harvard and Isabella Stewart Gardner Museums, along with one the MFA owns. And the Uffizi will send one more work–the very beautiful Pallas and the Centaur, which I’ve seen only in Florence. (See what I mean–referencing my comments above?)

I’ve chosen that one to illustrate this post because the two links give you a good idea of what’s on view at the Muscarelle.

 

 

 

Uh-Oh: Trouble at the Brooklyn Museum?

I’m not sure, but I just received an email announcing that Nancy Spector, who had joined the Brooklyn Museum* just last April as Deputy Director and Chief Curator, is moving back to the Guggenheim Museum–from whence she came.

At the Guggenheim, she will be in a “new position” as Artistic Director and Chief Curator. Her last job at the Guggenheim, before the Brooklyn post, was Deputy Director and Chief Curator. So this is a new title, and the Guggenheim is construing the job as something new and different, and expanded role. But, really?

According to the press release, Spector will handle:

conceptual and strategic leadership of collections, exhibitions, and curatorial programs at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue in New York and at all Guggenheim museums internationally. Through the new position of Artistic Director and Chief Curator, the Guggenheim will unify and strengthen artistic activities throughout its international constellation of museums and initiatives, both existing and in development, while accommodating the particular collections, initiatives, and audiences of each.

Before leaving for Brooklyn last year, lured by the new director Anne Pasternak, she had been at the Guggenheim for 29 years.

Maybe the transition was difficult. Maybe she didn’t have the resources she wanted at Brooklyn. Maybe she wanted to return her focus strictly to contemporary art. Maybe the Guggenheim’s director, Richard Armstrong–to whom she’ll again report–was very persuasive.

Her official line was in the release:

I’m grateful to Anne Pasternak, the Trustees and the wonderful staff of the Brooklyn Museum for giving me the opportunity to work with them and learn from them in their great institution. It has been a privilege to participate in the museum’s vital engagement with its community and to address the possibilities of its encyclopedic collection. But when Richard Armstrong approached me with the new position of Artistic Director at the Guggenheim, I simply could not let this extraordinary opportunity—which is truly unique to the Guggenheim—pass me by. I look forward to working with my Guggenheim colleagues in New York and around the world in envisioning the many innovative programs and initiatives we will create together in the coming years.

We shall see what this really means–but for now, Pasternak will have her hands full filling the job. And it’s yet another NYC-area museum in turmoil.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Brooklyn Museum.

 

 

Paint, Hats and Degas–Really?

Today the Saint Louis Art Museum opened a new exhibition called Degas, Impressionism and the Paris Millinery Trade. On the surface, it sounds like one of those cooked-up theses, a mix of fashion with art, to lure people who generally don’t visit art museums into the galleries. A gimmick.

Well, probably not. I have not seen the show, but I have paged through the catalog and I’ve seen some installations shots, posted here. Let’s start there. The pictures were provided by Simon Kelly, the SLAM curator.

I love them! I think the installation is very theatrical, largely because of the dark wall colors and the striped floors. And the lighting, of course. Young people, I’ve been told, like this kind of dramatic showcase, so maybe this will help attract them. For me, it’s simply that the colors show off the paintings beautifully. (I know others disagree, but to each his own.)

Simon tells me that the dark shade is “hale navy, the lighter blue gray is Ashland slate. …There’s also a gallery with Tarrytown green and two accent walls in chestnut (a warm red).” I looked them up and they are all Benjamin Moore paint colors. I’m posting shots here, with all four colors:

Now, about the exhibition: I’d like to see it. The catalogue contains some pretty great pictures–and far from all of them are by Degas. That was a surprise, given the title. The introductory essay does say that Degas explored the millinery theme “with an exceptional intensity” and says the show has “reunited for the first time …all of his millinery paintings” plus some pastels. But it also showcases works by Renoir, Cassatt, Manet, Morisot, Tissot and others.

No question, the cover picture–owned by the Art Institute of Chicago–The Millinery Shop–looks like the star. Here it is.

Photo Credits: Simon Kelly for the gallery shots and the Art Institute of Chicago for the last picture.